BLOG: Bristol City should abandon its new stadium plans. For now.

Before I begin, let me disclose that I am a Bristol City fan and former season ticket holder. Cash flow permitting I intend to buy a new season ticket in the summer, irrespective of which division the club finds itself in. I was at Ashton Gate a few weeks ago to see a seven successive defeat keep the club rooted to the bottom of the Championship. It wasn't a pretty sight. Over the weekend, I saw us trounced and humiliated by Wolves. Once again, the club finds itself in a relegation dogfight. Whether there's any fight left in the dog remains to be seen. At this stage, and from what I've witnessed this season, I'm not particularly hopeful.

Which brings me on to the question of the proposed new ground at Ashton Vale, going as smoothly as these things normally do: legal wranglings, judicial reviews, and squabbling over wasteland, which as if by magic, has been miraculously declared to be worthy of "village green" status. Fans have been left angry and probably a little bewildered. So far the only beneficiaries have been, surprise surprise, the lawyers. The club is in for a long, arduous battle.

But, all this may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. When the club first tentatively launched its plans for a new stadium, back in November 2007, already five years ago, its fortunes were in marked contrast to where they are today. Newbies in the Championship after promotion the previous season, and playing with that lack of fear that newly promoted teams often play with. The buzz around the place was palpable. They began November of that season in second place, losing only once in their opening 14 matches. With only eight games to go City were top. In the end, they finished fourth, losing to Hull in the play-offs final at Wembley. A horrible day. I was there.

Subsequent years later, an argument I heard countless times in the bogs at Ashton Gate – yup, you get to hear a lot queuing at the urinals - is the club over-achieved in its first Championship season.

Expectations were rampant the following season. Typically when it comes to football, blind faith, a belief that anything is possible, took over: "we missed out on promotion last season, but you wait. This year we'll be stronger and hungrier. We could almost taste the Promised Land of Premiership football, but were it not for one match, we'd be there, entertaining the likes of Man Utd and Chelsea at The Gate." Or so the conversation went.

The then manager Gary Johnson did nothing to dampen the hype, targeting a top two finish. The club finished 10th. The following season, 10th again. Then 15h. Last season 20th, only avoiding relegation thanks to a run of one defeat in ten. The stats don't lie. Almost every season Bristol City have done worse than the previous one. Even the cup runs, often a needed distraction, had ended before they had even begun.

In short, the club isn't in the best of health. Unsurprisingly, average home gates have tumbled. From just over 19,000 in 2007/08, dipping below 14,000 last season. Football can sometimes be a fairly predictable sport. Outside the Premiership, a club in poor form over a sustained period can expect a significant reduction in attendances.

Is this really the best time to be moving home? Football is littered with examples of clubs whose eyes have been bigger than their stomachs. Okay, that probably includes most clubs. But some have been more foolish than others. Darlington FC comes to mind as being the biggest disaster. Coventry another. Relegated from the Premier League in 2001, they moved in to a new 32,000 capacity ground four years later. They are currently playing League One football, with fewer than 9,000 attending a recent home match. There are others. However, I do accept that in Coventry's case, its proposed move took place whilst they were still in the top flight. Bristol City's wasn't. It hasn't been in the top division since 1980.

If it gets its way, it could soon be City fans rattling around a half-empty stadium. Do they really want to join the growing list of plastic, soulless, identikit, stadiums, named after some corporate non-entity, with match days resembling a day out at the American Football? Sponsored stands, with music blaring after goals scored. Heck, I'm surprised some clubs don't hold up a sign telling fans when to clap and when to boo. Football panto for the over-sanitised generation. To be fair to the club, it has worked closely with the supporters trust in ensuring the new ground wouldn't be like all the rest.

I'm not saying the club should give up altogether and never move. I was as excited as the next City supporter when plans were announced and images of the new stadium released. No doubt, even in the Championship, the first few home games would attract a near capacity crowd. But then the gloss would wear off as reality bites. 12,000 spectators in a spankingly new 30,000 seater stadium would start to look and feel depressing. The shine doesn't last forever. This is a problem for football and its fans in general up and down the country. Short-termism always wins the day. And for that, fans need to accept a large chunk of responsibility. Wide-eyed optimism can soon give way to relegation, administration, or even liquidation.

Moving now isn't the right time. I have no doubt that at some point in the future it'll happen. Ultimately, it's what happens on the pitch that matters. The rest can take care of itself. And objections to a new ground will find themselves drowned out if Bristol City are playing Premiership football. Until then, the club should concentrate on avoiding relegation to the graveyard of English football.

Ben Mitchell is a freelance political analyst who has had work published on The Independent website, and on a number of the country's top political blogs.

His personal blog can be found here. You can follow him on Twitter: @bmitchellwrites.

Comments

@the irons
sorry mate. i'm only looking at the facts and the record
you know the saying 'you can't polish a tu*d''
uintil ALL the underlying problems at BCFC - NOT AG!!! - get addressed, then the ground issue is IRRELEVANT. it's a red herring.
city won't justify having a 30K stadium UNTIL they have a team, a club and an infrastructure on a football level to make it work. they haven't had that - FOR YEARS. do you see it changing??? i DON'T.

What seems to have been missed here are the revenue streams a new stadium will bring that are not possible in an old-fashioned ground like Ashton Gate.
If the new town green enquiry removes the block on the stadium being built what does the blog writer suggest the owners of the land do? Sit on it for several years?
The owners of the land (Steve Lansdown and associates) are prepared to build a stadium. They need Sainsbury's money to help fund it. An indefinite delay could well mean Sainsbury's pull out.
City have been trying to find a stadium site for two decades and at last they have planning consent. If this opportunity is missed the likelihood of another popping up is as good as non-existent.
Whatever division the club is in if the legal blocks are removed and the land owners want to go ahead there is only one possible answer: the stadium must be built.

MARMELISER-- Congrats on giving sucker to the anti-stadium brigade , if you are a City supporter, then maybe i too should class my self as one. You say Brighton got a crowd of 26'000 for a night match how many would turn up at the Gate probably more than would have turned out at the old Goldstone ground .The reason for Brighton's large attendances is the new stadium, something they fought tooth and nail to secure, and something BCFC desperately need . You may be happy to watch your Football in a dilapidated ground , where you get to pay £30 for restricted views, but others are not.And maybe a new ground may one day help secure the local talented young footballers you find so important.

i couldn't agree with this more. the new stadium is, and has always been, a ''red'' herring
last week brighton got 26,000 in on a cold,wet tuesday night in their new stadium. i bet you the same game at AG would have attracted half that number - at best. so whats the point of a new ground?
it solves NOTHING of the endemic problems at AG = poor board, poor management, poor scouthing - locally, nationall and internationally, zero media profile, no success on the pitch - no championship won for over FIFTY YEARS
there is absolutely NO winning mentality down at AG. it's a 'shrug your shoulders', do the 'blame game' and not face up to the fact that too many people over DECADES, as well as now, simply have been and are not up to the job
the way things are going on a sporting level locally, i can see FOUR organisations sharing a new ground at UWE - city, rovers and bristol rugby, playing in the autumn, winter and spring, and gloucestershire cc playing in the spring and summer.
the reasons why city and local football is so pathetic? how long have you got? i could write a book about it. the only ''bristol united'' there is is 2 mostly serially useless football clubs, sadly.

If the club had sold their existing site for housing, rather than a massive neighbourhood changing "largest Sainsburys in the South West" Superstore, the stadium would have be been built by now, the oppostion much much less.
They didn't want to compromise - and so the wait goes on.

Bristol is the 6th biggest city in England yet Ashton Gate is in my opinion the 56th best stadium in the football league, that is a disgrace!! The fact that Bristol could have one club in league 1 and one club in the conference next season is also a disgrace. Every major city needs a decent stadium, that goes back to roman times. I don't think the stadium debate is going to make too much difference to performances on the pitch. A new stadium will herald a new era of optomism and will get bring in bigger crowds like all new stadiums have done!
Ashton gate has hardly been a lucky home for City (I think the place is jinxed) and Rovers have been nomads between one **** ground and another for years, and based on current attendances surely it makes sense to build just one new stadium. The clubs could initially share like in Milan or Munich, and then in the future if both clubs continue to be unsuccessful it might make sense to just have one club.
I know sharing would be unpopular, but Bristol needs a great stadium and its about time we had a decent football and Rugby team too!!

Interesting article & I could easily argue both sides but I've never been one to sit on the fence. My own personal view is that Steve Lansdown being the successful businessman he is unlikely to invest substantial money into a playing squad unless he can see a significant return on his money.
He is not an Abramovich who has money to burn. Most chairman I'm guessing never make huge sums of money out of football. Most, as in Steve Lansdowns case also do it for the love of the club. However with a small club as ours (it's not a massive club as any new player calls it when they join us!) margins are small. The only way SL can run a tight ship, make some money and hopefully have a successful team is to exploit the commercial opportunities of a new stadium. It concerns me greatly the lack of real investment in the squad. In the main the current first team without wishing to be disrespectful to the players is made up of people who couldn't get games in their previous clubs. I fear by January it could be too late even if SL proves me wrong and is able to attract some quality players in the transfer window. These next few weeks are crucial with the teams we have to play.

As Kbillies would say.
Ben Mitchell has produced a intelligent and thoughtful artical, highlighting the fact that any new stadium is just prospective part of Lansdowns business empire.
It has nowt to do with Bristol City FC it is purely a business venture that may involve Bristol City FC and others.
Any supporter that actually believes that the development is for their benifit will be sadly mistaken.
I look forward to reading more sensible opinions such as Ben,s.
The Lib Dems are doing a wonderful job.

Why are City wanting to spend tens of milions to move to an area of marsh a mile from its existing stadium with no local transport or facilities? Three words- South Bristol Link. Colour in that map between the SBL and the A370 with housing. The presence of a stadium would be a strong enabler of this. Is this cynical or realistic?